Untying the Knot: John Mark Byers and the West Memphis Three (15 page)

Byers
: Seems like my response would have been, no one had been cut with it—you know, that I would have known about—and he was referring to my two sons or my wife, I guess.

Price
: I asked you a few moments ago if you ever used the knife, and you said on one occasion you trimmed some veni—you attempted to trim some venison with it. You remember giving that response?

Byers
: Yes, sir.

Price
: Okay, do you remember being asked by Gitchell—this is on page 4—“Did you use the knife?” and giving the answer, “I never used it—I would have; hopefully I was going to use it for deer hunting; that’s all I do, deer hunt—but I never had an opportunity to use it on a deer”? Do you remember giving . . . being asked that question by Gitchell and giving that response?

Byers
: I don’t remember if Inspector Gitchell ever asked me in a conversation, did I ever hunt with it or did I ever use it for any other purpose like you asked me.

Mark testified that he had taken the context of Gitchell’s question to be
hunting
, which was not exactly what Gitchell was after. Mark’s answer to Price as to why he told Gitchell that he had never used the knife was this: “I never had an opportunity to use it on a deer ’cause I never hunted with it. It didn’t mean that at some time I didn’t have some venison in my home and try to use it to cut the venison, and he wasn’t asking me that.” He said he cut venison with the knife and cut
himself
with the knife, and Price couldn’t prove otherwise, despite pages and pages of direct examination.
⁷²
He couldn’t establish a clear contradiction in any of Mark’s statements to Gitchell and Ridge. If there were some inconsistencies in some of Mark’s answers, they probably fell on deaf ears in the jury box. The argument itself was almost silly: why would someone try to get rid of a murder weapon by giving it to someone who was filming a documentary about the crime? Why not simply toss it in the Mississippi River?

Price abandoned this line of questioning and began to probe the issue of Mark’s search of Robin Hood Hills on the night of the murders, insinuating that there were problems with his timeline. For example, he repeatedly asked Mark whether or not he left his house at 8:30 p.m., right after Officer Regina Meek left to begin her search for the boys (he did). Price also questioned Mark about the presence of mosquitoes that night in the area around Ten Mile Bayou. Price asked, “And at the time you left at 8:30, were the mosquitoes getting real bad at that point?” Mark answered, “Not that I remember.”

This was significant because Meek had testified that she had attempted to mount a search of Robin Hood Hills very close to the time that Mark Byers was doing the same. It was, she said, “well on its way to dark,” and she found the area to be so infested with mosquitoes that she was unable to continue. Meek testified, “The mosquitoes were tremendous. I was breathing in mosquitoes it was so bad. And I decided at that time that three eight-year-old boys would not be staying in the woods with mosquitoes that bad.”
⁷³
Although Val Price and others since then have tried to impeach Mark’s testimony based on Meek’s statement, no other searcher who entered the woods that night made any mention of mosquito infestation.
⁷⁴

Price shifted gears by attempting to put Mark’s timeline into question, though he couldn’t have been happy with the results. The failure of this line of questioning to yield any incriminating information was so complete that the prosecution didn’t even cross-examine him. Perhaps it was Price’s lack of skill in questioning witnesses, but his attempt to unnerve Mark was not having much affect.

Price
: Alright, my question is, when you left at 8:30, did you go to the area of the bayou?

Byers
: The area of the bayou—where are you referring to?

Price
: Wait, let me back up. At the time you left, about 8:30, had it gotten dark?

Byers
: It was getting dark.

Price
: Alright, do you recall, read the top line on page 4, where it says, “It’s now probably 8:30.”

Byers
: [reading] “It was probably 8:30; it had got dark.”

Price
: “It was probably 8:30; it had got dark.” Alright. At the time you left there at 8:30, it was, it already got dark. Did you take a flashlight with you at that point?

Byers
: No, sir.

Price
: Okay. Did you go back to the house later to get a flashlight?

Byers
: I went back to look for one.

Price
: Okay, about what time did you go back to the house looking for a flashlight?

Byers
: [sigh] I don’t remember exactly what time it was because we worked our way down to the street; we worked our way down 14th looking for [Christopher], Ryan and I.

Price
: Alright, when you went out looking at 8:30, were you looking in the area of the bayou?

Byers
: We had been told that they were seen down by where the concrete is pushed in the ditch.

Price
: Alright. Now, answer my question. When you left at 8:30, were you looking in the area of the bayou?

Byers
: We went down and looked down on this end. I don’t know what you’re referring to, you know, what you would consider the area of the bayou. The bayou’s ten miles long.

Price
: Alright, so you’re saying that you were looking in the area of the bayou at 8:30?

Byers
: I don’t understand your question, counselor.

If Price thought that asking the same question over and over would shake Mark Byers up, he was mistaken. Furthermore, his lack of knowledge about the various locations surrounding the crime scene made his questions impossible to answer. Finally, Price questioned Mark about the “whipping” he had given Christopher on the afternoon he disappeared. This subject, like so many others in the case, was blown so far out of proportion to its relevance that it continues to spark debate today.
Devil’s
Knot
author Mara Leveritt and
Paradise
Lost
2:
Revelations
“star” Brent Turvey, a forensic scientist, were among the more vocal proponents of a link between the spanking and Christopher’s death. Price continued his direct examination along these lines.

Price
: Alright. Earlier that afternoon, had you given Chris a whipping?

Byers
: Approximately around 5:30.

Price
: Okay, this was around 5:30, and was this with a belt?

Byers
: Yes, sir.

Price
: Okay, and approximately how many times did you hit him with a belt?

Byers
: I spanked him two or three times.

Price
: And what part of the body did you spank him?

Byers
: It would have been just on his behind.

Price
: Okay. Was his . . . was he wearing his pants, or did you have him pull his pants down?

Byers
: No, he had on blue jeans.

In evoking the preceding testimony, Price was weakly attempting to establish that Mark Byers had a motive for the crime (the whipping), something that his client Damien Echols seemingly lacked. In his closing argument to the jury on March 17, Price suggested that Mark was trying to obfuscate a timeline that would have allowed him the opportunity to commit the murders and that the knife gave him the means. “First of all, we have . . . we brought forth the existence of other suspects,” Price began. He continued,

And the reason we did that is because the existence of other suspects could be reasonable doubt. One of the things we brought forth is testimony concerning John Mark Byers. This is not an attempt on behalf of the defense to go after anybody without any basis. But we brought forth evidence that this particular knife here, defendant’s E-6—we had testimony from Dr. Peretti that some of the injuries on Christopher Byers were consistent with this type of knife.

We also had the testimony that there was blood, which later tested to be DNA, and that was consistent with Chris Byers and also John Mark Byers. Now where was that blood; where was that DNA? Was it on the blade part that could have been easily wiped off? No. The blood was back . . . the testimony was, back in the hinge. And it was real hard to get to. We also had the testimony . . . was that the only evidence about this knife? No. There was the testimony where Dr. Peretti said he saw a red fiber in this knife. Was that red fiber ever tested by the crime lab? No. In addition, we have the testimony of Dr. Peretti that some—from this witness stand up here—some of the injuries on Chris Byers were consistent with a knife of this type. That was the testimony of Dr. Peretti. We also asked John Mark Byers about statements that he’d given the police. When he testified on the stand, he testified that he injured his thumb while making beef jerky back at Thanksgiving. Okay, and then we asked him about the previous statements he gave the police on two different occasions. There’s times [that] the police interviewed him back in May, right after the bodies were found. Officer Ridge said, “We have evidence that you’re involved; we think you’re a suspect,” and they asked him about it. In addition, all the way—January, middle part of January—they again asked him about this specific knife. And what did Mr. Byers say at that time? Mr. Byers said, “There’s no way my blood could be on that knife. There’s no way Christopher’s blood could be on that knife. I have no idea how any blood could be on that knife.”

Price then tried to establish opportunity:

In addition, we have the testimony of Mr. Byers’s whereabouts that evening. He testified he left about . . . that at one time he left to try to find Christopher, came back, and then he left about 8:30. Of course, he testified it was dark at 8:30. So what’s he do when he leaves the house at 8:30? He leaves, still wearing shorts, still wearing flip-flops, still without a flashlight. Course he leaves, and it’s dark, and then he says later on he went back. I think the questionable whereabouts of John Mark Byers is important.

Price stopped short of trying to convince the jury in his closing argument that the “whipping” Christopher had received was sufficient motive for Mark to kill and mutilate his son and the two other boys, despite having questioned Mark about it on direct examination. It left him with a void, however.
⁷⁵
Although neither the defense nor the prosecution is required to establish motive, it would be tremendously difficult to convince twelve jurors that a father would commit a crime such as this without at least suggesting a reason and more difficult still to convince them that the motive was related to a spanking given to his son earlier in the day. Price was hoping that the jury would infer motive during their deliberations.

On March 18, after only a day and a half of deliberation, the jury found Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin guilty of first-degree murder in the deaths of Christopher Byers, Steve Branch, and Michael Moore. It took a little over two hours for the sentences to be fixed at death for Echols and life without parole for Baldwin.